No reporter has an obligation to withhold information in an investigation

[kentuck]

...of a criminal act. To the contrary, they have an obligation to tell their source that they must cooperate with any criminal investigation. Bob Woodward knew there was a serious investigation going on and he knew the reason why. He chose to remain quiet. what if it had been a more serious crime such as murder? Would he have had the right to "protect his source" then? I'm not so sure it is not an obstruction of justice by Mr. Woodward.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. No proof yet that a crime's been committed,

keep that in mind.

I'm not sure that Woodward's done anything wrong besides being a self-serving apologist for the Bush White House. He fucked over his editors, betrayed his colleagues, but I'm not sure what he did rises to the level of obstruction. That's a really murky area, the idea of reporters and sources, especially in the Federal arena, where the law remains confusing to everyone.

[kentuck]

2. I think we know a crime has been committed but...

we do not know who did it? I think it has been accepted law that it is against the law to expose an agent of the CIA ? But you're the lawyer.. :)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. It's a badly-written law

Thanks to Victoria Toensing, who really deserves summary execution for having drafted such an abomination and fobbed it off as a law.

There has to be proof - and this is the kind of proof that has to convince a jury - that the speaker (defendant) knowingly revealed the covert identity.

That's the trick word - "knowingly." Damn hard, really, really hard law to prosecute successfully. I don't think that Fitzgerald - honestly - is ever going to get anyone under this law.

[kentuck]

4. I have heard that...

it is almost impossible to convict because of the way the law was written by Ms. Toensing. Thanks for the clarification.